Tag Archives: SanBAG

San Bernardino Transit Center Celebrates One Year of Service

wp-1473652650531.jpg
One artist used Omnitrans’ old logo as part of his drawing. Photo: author/iNLand fIEts.

This past Saturday, visitors to the San Bernardino Transit Center (SBTC) were treated to a tunes, a cold drink, and a place to rest between buses as Omnitrans held a party to celebrate the first year of operations of the SBTC. As local all-girl band Alive in the Lights rocked out under a cloudless sky, members of the community participated in a chalk art contest in the plaza in front of the SBTC. Artists were competing for a $250 grand prize and they brought their A-game with many great designs. As they drew, they were entertained by antics provided by the SANBAG See Tracks, Think Train campaign mascot  out spreading the word of practicing safety around tracks.

A little over year ago, on August 24, 2015, that dignitaries and curious onlookers stopped by the soon-to-be-completed SBTC in the eponymous city to celebrate the grand opening of the new transfer and customer service facility. The anticipation turned to excitement on September 8, when the SBTC officially opened to the public. Envisioned by Omnitrans since the 1980s, the Transit Center replaces the transfer hub that had floated around the 4th St. area of downtown San Bernardino for decades.

It brings together almost all of their East Valley service into one central location, providing connections to the sbX Green Line, MARTA Off the Mountain service, VVTA BV Link, (as of today) Pass Transit Commuter Link 120, Metrolink by the end of next year via the under construction Downtown Passenger Rail Project, and the Redlands Passenger Rail Project which is projected to be open by 2021. However, the coordination to ensure those connections are available and make sense did delay the completion of the TC, which was originally supposed to open before or at least in conjunction with sbX. At some point in the distant future, CA high-speed rail may also arrive at the site, which would truly awaken the city.

The facility has a staffed customer service desk and 24/7 security to maintain peace and order. Omnitrans has thus far received largely positive reviews of the facility from the riders, many of whom really appreciate the fact that there is an indoor waiting area, public bathrooms, and connections all in one place. The lobby isn’t a grand hall, but it’s design is functional and elegant and provides travelers a much-needed respite from the elements, especially those who are waiting for connections to Omni’s services that run at only an hourly frequency.

However, not everyone is completely happy with the TC. In addition to the usual complaints about the use of tax dollars for public transit, several people have expressed concern about the lack of parking provided at the site. This is certainly an interesting argument because, realistically speaking, there are few instances where Omnitrans’ local service provides a travel time that is superior to that of driving and most of them are not really in the areas around downtown San Bernardino. As such, it doesn’t seem very likely that many people would drive to park and take the bus, something which is already borne out by the parking lots that Omnitrans built for the sbX Green Line that are 99% empty 99% of the time. Building another lot at the TC for bus passengers doesn’t seem necessary and Omnitrans was right to not do so.

wp-1473652641726.jpg
In the future, Omnitrans hopes to bring a transit-focused development to the empty lot seen behind the canopies.

Not doing so also meant that they have space that is available for development on the site that will be easier to convert to that use from an empty lot than it would be from a designated parking lot. However, since the TC is also going to connect to Metrolink, parking will be provided in conjunction with the completion of that portion of the project. Additionally, 10-minute drop-off parking is available on Rialto Ave. at the front of the TC. Furthermore, there are literally dozens of acres of surface lots available within a two block radius of the site that could be tapped with some sort of agreement to provide parking for the TC if it’s truly necessary, including over 13 acres directly adjacent the TC at the San Manuel Stadium.

While parking for cars at the TC isn’t plentiful, there is a decent amount of bike parking strewn around the site, albeit of mixed utility. The good part about it is that it is of an inverted U shape and square, but unfortunately, the racks themselves were installed far too close together, rending them partially useless. In addition to the bike parking, the TC is also host to the San Bernardino Bike Hubitat co-op shop. Since opening in May, the Hubitat has helped hundreds of Omni patrons continue rolling.

In the next few years, the SBTC should see an increase in use as more transit connections come online. However, most of the ultimate success for the Center rests squarely on the shoulders of the City. As they look to exit bankruptcy, they have the opportunity to really become a regional powerhouse and world-class city with smart investments and leadership. The coming transit connections provide an extremely advantageous starting point, but they still need to really take the reigns and look forward to the future. Hopefully, that realization happens soon and we can look forward to many more anniversary celebrations.

SANBAG Releases I-10 HOV/HOT Lanes Draft EIR for Public Comment

The clock is now ticking after San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) finally released the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed I-10 HOV/HOT lanes this past Monday, April 25. With the comment period closing June 8, interested parties have just a little over a month to review and weigh in on several gigabytes worth of information. SANBAG really should’ve taken the proactive step and opened up for a 60-day comment period, but that ship is likely sailed. In either case, there will be a more in-depth review of the proposed projects at a later date, but it’s important to get the word out about the comment period.

A quick glance through the Executive Summary shows a project steeped in the height car-centric planning and design that has led to a region consistently ranked as highly sprawled and that is completely out-of-line with state goals and the economy of the 21st Century. Though the No Build is provided by way of comparison, the report focuses on the two build alternatives: extending the existing HOV lane from Haven Ave. in Ontario to Ford St. in Redlands or constructing HOT lanes from the LA/SBD county line through to Yucaipa. Those options come with a price tag of around $660mn or $1.7bn respectively, but either figure is almost certain to increase after more involved design and construction activities are undertaken.

Those price tags might ultimately be this project’s undoing. Although San Bernardino County’s Measure I allocates funding specifically for a HOV lane on I-10, it will likely not be anywhere near enough to cover the full cost of that alternative. Additionally, as the State continues to cut funding from transportation projects due to the volatility with gas tax income (which is set to enter free fall soon) as well as an increasing focus on moving the transportation paradigm away from its car-centric focus, it seems increasingly unlikely that SANBAG would be able to procure many State funds for a project so diametrically at odds with the State’s goals. Perhaps they will be able to get more luck out of the Feds, but even the USDOT has realized that we can’t build roads indefinitely.

This Draft EIR also provides some insight into recent reports that SCAG* is frantically fighting to delay the implementation of SB 743, which will replace LOS with VMT as a significant impact under CEQA, and is another prime example how other agencies are hampering Caltrans’ efforts to modernize. SCAG’s Transportation Committee is chaired by a representative from Ontario (by way of SANBAG), a city right at the literal crossroads of this project and a similar proposal for I-15 and where a sprawling new community of over 46,000 homes is currently under construction. The Executive Summary casually mentions that the two build options are forecast to result in a 3% (HOV) or 10% (HOT) increase in VMT, something which the forthcoming CEQA thresholds would certainly consider a rather significant impact in need of mitigation since they aim to set a threshold of significance at 15% below baseline. Needless to say, SANBAG and its member jurisdictions are not interested in being told that they need to reign in the parade of building more freeways and overbuilt stroads that dice up the region, even as they struggle to maintain what already exists.

Of course, a project this large has not gone ahead completely unnoticed. While the HOV option was expressly included in the Measure I extension that was passed way back in 2004 with around 80% support, the HOT option was not. Not surprisingly, SANBAG is seeking to get more bang for the buck by leveraging that money with private investment to build and operate the HOT option. However, the prospect of including tolls has piqued the interest of the Tea Party in the area, who have continued to turn out in force to protest this “Agenda 21 plan to force us out of our cars”. Considering that SANBAG and its member jurisdictions continue to build and widen roads with reckless abandon [PDF], that claim couldn’t be further from the truth. At the same time, they are attracting some public interest against the project, which may ultimately prove to be a blessing in disguise if it delays or stops the project.

As mentioned above, a far more in-depth (and boring) look at the project will be undertaken at some point in the future. But for now, it’s imperative that everyone head over to the project website, http://www.1015projects.com, access the Draft EIR documents, and comment on it. Though considering the size and magnitude of the document and project, it would be nice if SANBAG would extend the comment period, that doesn’t seem likely, so look and comment early. Comments can be sent to the following address:
Aaron Burton, Branch Chief, Caltrans District 8
Attn: I-10 CP Draft EIR/EIS Comment Period
464 W. 4th Street
San Bernardino, CA 9240

*Though SANBAG is large enough to be an MPO itself, the regional MPO is SCAG.

Evaluating RCTC’s Coachella Valley Rail Proposals

For a little over a year, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has been undertaking a study to explore the possibility of providing daily passenger rail service to the Coachella Valley. This is at least the seventh time in nearly 30 years that the concept has been explored. (Previous studies of all or parts of the potential route were the focus of or included in other efforts previously completed in 1991, 199319992005, 2010, and 2013.) But with this being take seven on the project, perhaps it’s time to figure out exactly what needs to be done to get this plan off the shelves and to see trains rolling.

The elephant in the room continues to be that the only truly viable alternative to reach the area is by routing passenger traffic through the Union Pacific Yuma Subdivision that heads east from the Colton Crossing. As one of the two principal freight rail arteries in and out of SoCal heading east, Union Pacific understandably has concerns about the proposition of running an increased number of passenger trains over their rails. Currently, Amtrak’s Sunset Limited operates through the corridor, but it is only thrice-weekly service with late night/early morning stops in the area–hardly usable by the majority of potential travelers.

The latest report provides five Alternatives along with reasons for/against them. As the Yuma Subdivision is the only existing route to the Coachella Valley, all the differences occur from the Colton Crossing to LAUS. The five Alternatives (resulting in six total possibilities) are to use the BNSF San Bernardino Sub (Alternative 1), use the UP LA Sub (Alternative 2); use the UP Alhambra Sub (Alternative 3), use two variations of the Metrolink San Gabriel Sub (Alternative 4), or use a hybrid option blending Alternative 4B and 3 (Alternative 4). Four of those options made it through the course level screening to a more detailed analysis and will be expounded upon: 1, 4A/B, and 5.

Alternative 1

As mentioned above, west of Colton is where the differences lie. Of the four potential routes advanced to fine-level screening, Alternative 1 was the only one looked on favorably and advanced to the level of further planning/EIS. Several factors in its favor exist including most principally, a corridor population that is around 25% higher than the others have or would provide in the near-term. Though all study is being done using the assumption of Amtrak service similar to the existing Pacific Surfliner, this proposed route would be the functional equivalent of extending the Metrolink 91 Line out to the Coachella Valley and would in effect, be adding a limited stop train from LAUS to Riverside. Ideally, the Rail2Rail program should be implemented over that portion of the route to allow people to take advantage of that option. From Riverside, the train would then continue north to the Colton Crossing, where it would turn east to reach Indio as outlined above. RCTC currently still has quite a few unused daily allotments for the route, so implementing service via Alternative 1 would only require buying (or leasing) the trainsets and building a few stations. This route also has the second-fastest projected travel time and high ridership.

Alternative 4A

The second Alternative considered at the fine level is branded 4A. This option would be routed primarily over the San Gabriel Subdivision, which is owned by LA Metro and SANBAG for operating Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line. However, the San Gabriel Sub is at present, not directly connected with the Yuma, so this option requires several things be done to make that connection. The proposal calls for squeezing a track to connect to the northbound BNSF line between I-10 and the Colton Crossing and also just continue it through Colton to connect to the Metrolink Short Way Subdivision that is used by the IEOC Line to reach San Bernardino and Metrolink to access their Colton yard. A flyover would then be built to connect that track with the San Gabriel Subdivision and the report also calls for the two segments of double-tracking already underway to be built. This Alternative would have Inland Empire stops at Rialto and Montclair before heading to LA over the same route used by Metrolink. According to the analysis, this option would produce the fastest travel time of 3:06 as well as the second-highest ridership.

However, it was ultimately, it was not selected for further study due to requiring a minimum investment of $141mn more than Alternative 1 and potential ROW issues, including relocating a trucking facility at the BNSF San Bernardino yard. But looking at the reality of the area, a connection could probably be built to connect to the existing flyover and thus avoid relocating the majority of the trucking yard. Presumably, some of the money would also go into the double-tracking projects mentioned above, but it’s primarily slated for providing the connection to the BNSF tracks and Short Way in Colton as well as the flyover to connect with the San Gabriel Subdivision. Additionally, at least two actual bridges would be required (one over La Cadena, one over Lytle Creek) and though there is a little room for it, adding a fourth track through Colton will require a couple things to be moved and at least two more grade crossings be expanded. Though not studied in the report, the Colton track does provides an opportunity for a Colton stop to be added to the IEOC Line and potentially the CV train as well.

Alternative 4B/5

The last two Alternatives, 4B and 5, are functionally the same, so they’ll be looked at in tandem. Both would use the same connection in Colton as presented by 4A to reach the Short Way, but would instead utilize the San Bernardino Downtown Passenger Rail extension to continue all the way into the recently completed San Bernardino Transit Center located downtown. Going to the SBTC would provide connections with numerous transit services serving the San Bernardino Valley, Mountain communities, and Victor Valley areas. This option also avoids the need for a flyover in the BNSF yard, but leaves the recommendation for the double-tracking along the San Gabriel Sub. However, the train would have to switch ends in San Bernardino before being able to continue to LAUS. According to the report, this maneuver can take up to half an hour, so accommodating it is projected to likely necessitate another layover track be added to the site. The layover also effectively cuts the journey into two separate trips. That could be great for station-area businesses in San Bernardino, but results in a major hits on ridership and travel times. Unsurprisingly, these two options have the longest scheduled travel times but lowest ridership.

The rest of the route is for Alternative 4B, identical to Alternative 4A. Alternative 5 instead uses the UP Alhambra Subdivision into LAUS from near the El Monte station which provides a potential bypass of the single track line on I-10. Both 4A and 5 would differ from 4A in that they would not stop at Rialto, only at Montclair. Additionally, 5 require second flyover in El Monte to provide access to the Alhambra Sub without running into freight congestion. Course-level screening indicated that Alternative 5 would require double-tracking of the Alhambra, but the ongoing Alameda Corridor East San Gabriel Trench appears to be taking care of that. Still, in comparison to Alternative 1, these two options have a potential cost of $130mn more for 4B or $162mn more for Alternative 5. Due to both the cost but especially the turn time depressing ridership, these two Alternatives were also nixed from further configuration.

Results

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Alternative 1 has been selected for further study and advancement to the EIR/EIS stage. This is the only Alternative that would actually serve the City of Riverside, which, notwithstanding the relative lack of necessary investment compared to the others, likely was a part of the deciding factor for its favorable consideration in a study commissioned by RCTC. Progress toward those environmental documents is undoubtedly being worked on now. Additionally, though Measure A doesn’t put much money toward rail, cap and trade money might provide the ability to acquire equipment and start the service. With new locomotives on the way for the Surfliner and Metrolink, there will probably be some surplus power available in the LA area soon that, pending funding, can be leased for a decent price to get things rolling within a few months of final approval of the environmental documents. Hopefully, that can happen before the 40th anniversary of the first study.

SANBAG Slowing Chugs Ahead with Metrolink Double Tracking

Yesterday, the SANBAG board of directors approved a motion directing staff to begin searching for a firm to complete an environmental document and 30% design for a chronically needed double-tracking of Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line. This comes after it zoomed through the agency’s Commuter Rail & Transit Committee last month. The proposed segment of double track will be a pivotal piece of infrastructure that will allow Metrolink to better serve and grow the corridor with the highest ridership.

Screenshot 2015-11-26 21.19.49
The Metrolink San Bernardino Line Twitter account (@MetrolinkSB) is an ongoing chronicle of the innumerable near-daily cascading delays caused by the  prevalence of single track on the route.

The biggest improvement will undoubtedly be the ability to ease congestion and decrease some of the delays that are a surreal problem on the line nearly every single day. The proposed segment will add about three miles to an existing siding of just under two miles, creating one of the longest sections of double track along the line. The project will also mean the addition of a second platform (and likely pedestrian underpass) at the Rialto station, which will hopefully be long enough to serve Metrolink’s new eight-car trainset being used on the San Bernardino Line.

If done right, the improvements could greatly benefit not just Metrolink  users, but the city of Rialto too. Currently, there are several vacant properties that are located next to the Rialto station which provide a perfect opportunity for smart TOD that can integrate developments into the station via the proposed pedestrian underpass (or overpass if that’s the final decision) and dozens more within a kilometer. The newly expanded parking lot at the station can also be leveraged to meet parking requirements for developments, reducing the “need” to build more parking in an area that is not exactly constrained. Furthermore, AB 744 can also be invoked as a last resort for any developments that include affordable housing components.

lilac_gates
The second of two bicyclists who proceeded past the lowered gates at Lilac Avenue in less than a minute.

The double tracking project will also provide the perfect opportunity to perform several necessary safety enhancements. The biggest is likely the ability to upgrade up to eight grade crossings to be quiet zones, a very welcome and necessary move that would provide relief to the surrounding communities that are currently subject to hearing more than 1000 horn blasts a day. Additionally, quiet zone improvements can form one part of efforts to decrease unauthorized access to the rail corridor that currently sees frequent use as a walkway by the community at large, including children heading to/from school.

The SANBAG staff report included with the item [PDF, p. 97] mentions that this project came out of a joint study with LA Metro [PDF] that looked at the most cost-effective strategies to improve San Bernardino Line service (which should’ve just been titled “what should we double track first?”). The report also mentions that LA Metro is moving forward with a similar proposal for environmental and preliminary engineering for double-tracking Lone Hill to CP White in LA County and makes the case for waiting on both studies to be complete before seeking grant funding for both in tandem. That may ultimately not be the best idea, especially if one study gets delayed or contested, as the improvements are needed immediately.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
SANBAG’s Chief of Rail & Transit presents at the December Board meeting.

No timeline was presented at the meeting, but the Countywide Transportation Plan projects that it will be at least another decade [PDF, p. 128] before the project is complete, up to four years after projects to widen the two adjacent freeways, I-10 and I-210, are completed. That’s absurd. Building three miles of track next to an existing track in an active rail right-of-way that has room to fit five tracks shouldn’t take ten years to accomplish. With Metrolink continuing to bleed ridership, that amount of delay to complete the first of several needed double-tracking projects is rather unacceptable, especially in light of AB32 targets for 2020 and with funding available from Cap & Trade for rail projects. It is imperative that anything that can be done to speed the process along be undertaken.

To be fair, the Metrolink San Bernardino Line Infrastructure Improvement Study did present and recommend that an accelerated timeline and funding schedule funding schedule be used, which it appears that SANBAG is attempting to pursue by completing the study in tandem with LA Metro. If those recommendations can be followed, it would be very encouraging for both Metrolink riders and the region as a whole, especially as VMT-based CEQA standards come into the picture.

More photos available on Flickr.

What If: Priorities

Where do your community’s priorities lie? That’s a question that we should all be asking ourselves as we prepare to make infrastructure investments that will have an effect for decades into the future.

Nowhere is this more evident and important than in our transportation decisions. In many communities, the transportation network rests on a backbone of arterial roads. However, decades of

A typical arterial cross-section being used in many newer developments all around the country dedicates all space to cars.
A typical arterial cross-section popular in the region dedicates the majority of space to cars.

car-centric planning and design have resulted in facilities that are increasingly referred to as “stroads“. They’re not good streets, but they’re not good roads either and in the end, everyone gets the short end of the stick. The result is a facility that suffers from “peak hour” congestion and that doesn’t serve those who aren’t driving.

But there’s a better way. With a little shift in thinking, it becomes easier to design a transportation network that is good for the mobility of all, whether they be on a bike, in a car, walking, or using transit. When viewed as a corridor and principles of complete streets are applied, these facilities can be optimized to provide maximum movement of goods and people, not just cars.

An arterial dedicated to moving people takes on a different form.

With that understanding, it becomes evident that the current system is grossly inefficient and needs to change. But what does the alternative look like? Using the same room as before, a redesign of the corridor assigns each mode its own dedicated space optimized for its specific travel needs. Cars and trucks don’t slow down transit, transit doesn’t block lanes to load its patrons, and bicyclists are free to pass along on their own separate path optimized for biking. For roads that access industrial facilities, it can even be tweaked a bit more to offer a dedicated truckway in the corridor that is reinforced to handle the axle loads of trucks.

Far from just musings, this design is in use already in The

Archimedeslaan in Utrecht includes a roadway for motorists, a busway (bus times shown), and a bikeway.
Archimedeslaan in Utrecht includes a roadway for motorists, a busway (including a bus information screen at stops), and a bikeway. This corridor has the capacity to move triple the amount of people as the “Major Arterial” above.

Netherlands, where mobility in numerous cities is provided for all in a manner optimized for their needs. The same model can be used in the existing cities and especially new developments here in the Inland Empire. Instead of building the biggest roads today in anticipation of “future demand”, they can be built with all modes in mind in a method that greatly increases the efficiency of all the systems for all.

This is vitally important as despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent, the transportation infrastructure in the Inland Empire region has shown no improvement in recent years, barely maining a D+ rating in both the 2005 and 2010 assessments from the local branch of the American Society of Civil Engineers, but requiring  a whopping 67% increase in annual investment during that time. If we are going to ever truly see signs of improvement on not just the roads, but many other local issues, there needs to be some real change in priorities. Switching the focus to the movement of goods and people over just cars will set the Inland Empire up for a more robust and resilient future.

SANBAG’s Poor Design Leaves Pedestrians Scrambling for Alternatives

A couple months ago, SANBAG announced the completion of the Hunts Lane grade separation project and had a little shindig to celebrate. At that time, I commented that the project is a net benefit for pedestrian access in the area. I spoke too soon.

You had one job! But seriously. These 'shark teeth' are backwards.
The ‘shark teeth’ on opening week. They’ve since been reoriented to the correct direction.

When the bridge opened, the construction crews were still working on a couple other things, such as the ‘shark teeth’ that had been installed wrong as well as ornamental plants. At that time, I also commented on some other potential issues with various other design details that were causing line-of-sight problems.

The crosswalks at the intersections have been purged from the final design.
The crosswalks at the intersections have been purged from the final design.

SANBAG has addressed some of the issues that were brought up in the last post, especially the line-of-sight problems.  This has been accomplished by removing all pedestrian elements that were in place. And while it may have been part of the original plan that had yet to be implemented when the initial review was done, they’ve added insult to injury by installing barriers to prohibit (CVC 275) pedestrians from crossing east or west across Hunts Ln. So while pedestrians wishing to cross the river of speeding cars must detour nearly a quarter of a mile to legally do so, drivers get to sprint across 135 feet, made all the more easier by the improved sight lines courtesy of the removed crosswalks.

This comes as a double slap in the face because efforts were made to open a cul-de-sac with a nice landscaped path that connects to the very corner in question. Needless to say, the majority of people would prefer a straight crossing over a landscaped meandering path that takes them out of the way as can be seen by the people who cross anyway.

IMG_3738
All hope is not lost, though. SANBAG can fix the issue by redesigning the intersection. At a minimum, a pedestrian island should be installed that allows pedestrians a safe passage across Hunts Ln. in the place of the current painted island (pictured above) with at least rectangular rapid flashing beacons. Ideally, that island should also be designed to only allow left turns onto Commercial and Riverwood and remove the ability to turn left or cut across the intersection for cars. This will likely have the added effect of keeping the communities from being effective ‘rat runs’ like they currently are.

It’s unfortunate to see this level of disregard to practical mobility options for those who are not in a car. With these latest developments in the final design, I am forced to downgrade my initial perceptions of the project’s impacts to pedestrians from favorable to unfavorable. The new sidewalks to cross the tracks are nice, but access in general has actually been decreased because though it was a river a cars, there was no actual prohibition on crossing Hunts Lane before, which could potentially be really easy when traffic was stopped for due to any of the dozens of daily trains that passed through there. Hopefully, SANBAG takes up the challenge and remedies the discrepancy for the better.

More photos available on flickr.

Today’s News

How’s it going folks? Couple things happened since yesterday, a couple more going on today or soon. Here goes:

  • Carnage: Man arrested in connection with road rage fight that resulted in death (PE)
  • Carnage: One dead after losing control of their car (PE)
  • Carnage: Woman takes out dry cleaner shop while trying to park (VVNG)
  • Carnage: One dead after weekend crash in Murrieta, driver arrested for DUI (Valley News)
  • Google responds to concerns that Waze allows people to “track” police movements (LAT)
  • Adventure Cycling Association is still waiting for Caltrans District 8 to approve bikes on I-40, asks for you to lend your voice (Adventure Cycling)
  • Victorville skatepark plan sent to committee (VVDP)
  • SANBAG holding informational meeting in Loma Linda this evening about the I-10/Tippecanoe Interchange (SANBAG [PDF]) and public workshops about its Short Range Transit Plan for the 2015-19 Fiscal Years all this week (SANBAG [PDF])
  • Are our suburbs actually dying? (FG)

All this and more continues to abound all around. Check back tomorrow to see what’s next.

Today’s News

The week is almost over, just two more days. Here are some things to keep you occupied on your coffee break:

  • Carnage: Las Vegas woman dies on I-15 (VVNG)
  • SANBAG and Caltrans will be holding a public meeting about the I-10/Tippecanoe Interchange Project on Tuesday (SANBAG, [PDF])
  • Free Palm Springs weekend trolley has residents Buzzing with excitement (Desert Sun)
  • Passenger traffic taking off at PSP (Desert Sun)
  • Strengthening infrastructure is intimately intertwined with strengthening the middle class (T4A)
  • The CV Link gets endorsement from City of Desert Hot Springs (Desert Sun)
  • State finalizes standards for Affordable Housing Program under Cap & Trade (SBLA)
  • Atlanta, which is about as sprawled as the IE, also has a lot of desire line paths where sidewalks should be (ATLUrbanist)

Plans Plans Plans

It seems like there is always another plan in the pipeline. Which is good. Plans are certainly great, especially when we’re spending money on projects that have broad implications for now and the future. In light of that, there are several things in the works that can still take YOUR input to help improve them. Here go two things to look at over the next few weeks and leave your thoughts or concerns.

Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan

Caltrans is working on updating their Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP) for 2015 and are seeking input on areas to focus the Department’s energies. The ITSP is what they use to decide how to prioritize corridors and make improvements to vital connections across the state. Especially to remote areas, some of which are certainly present here in the IE. They hosted some workshops already, but you can still send them comments and they also have a survey. Nonetheless, your input is important, so make sure they get it!

High Desert Corridor
HDC DEIR/DEIS cover art.

Along that same line of thought are the plans for the High Desert Corridor. Streetsblog LA has kept tabs on the project as it has poked along over the last few years. Earlier this year, the HDC  DEIR/DEIS made a splash when it was released…because of the cover art. The project would create a (new) thoroughfare across the, you guessed it, High Desert. The current plans are for a controlled access design (either tollway or freeway) from SR-14 in the west to I-15 in the east, then an expressway down to Apple Valley. The intent is to improve SR-18 and SR-138 safety and travel efficiency. If the HDC is built, Caltrans is proposing to revert those two routes back to local control in their respective communities. Options also include a possible rail line that would connect with CA High Speed Rail in Palmdale and continue on to Las Vegas. It would be great for it to also include regular commuter rail as it could finally bring daily train service to the Victorville area. Additionally, there are plans to include solar installations to power the facilities.

Most promising of all, there is a plan to include a parallel Class I facility for non-motorized travel along the entire length of the Corridor. But as great as that sounds, the DEIR shows that Caltrans is still fundamentally focused on moving cars and just tacking the non-motorized portion on to get (Jerry) Brownie points. Specifically, the DEIR makes comments on the problems of 8′ wide paths, which is the minimum width allowed in the HDM for a Class I. However, considering the importance of the corridor and lack of alternatives, the minimum width should be at least double that to allow for a good experience to all users and of course for adequate access by maintenance equipment. The HDC has the opportunity to really improve active transportation options for High Desert residents, but they need guidance to make sure that it happens.

That’s where you come in. The Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement is available for just over a week more on the Caltrans District 7 website. If you feel like some light reading [PDF] after your turkey, thumb through the volumes then submit your comments. Additionally, LA METRO has developed an interactive map where you can leave comments. Take full advantage of those opportunities to call for Caltrans/METRO/SANBAG to build the best corridor possible for all users, not just another highway.

If you know of any other plans in the works, especially over the holiday season, leave a reply in the comments with info about it! Some agencies like to sneak their stuff out at this time of year when everyone is taking vacation and won’t notice it until too late. Don’t let that happen to us this year.

Progress Report: Hunts Lane overpass now open

Well, SanBAG had a Halloween treat for San Bernardino/Colton residents: they opened the Hunts Lane overpass to traffic. An official dedication is scheduled for Thursday morning, but it will occur in a parking lot directly east of the bridge. Still, attend if you can. It’s nice for citizens to show up to these sorts of things every once in awhile.

Existing conditions on Waterman Ave. south of the tracks.
Existing conditions for peds on Waterman Ave. south of the tracks.

Anyway, a little bit of info about the project. Located in the southern end of San Bernardino/eastern edge of Colton, this $29mn project means that the dozens of Union Pacific trains and a smattering of Amtraks (but unfortunately no daily passenger service to the Palm Springs area) that pass through this route no longer result in Hunts Ln. being blocked for any lengths of time. It will also be a massive improvement for pedestrians compared to Waterman Avenue, especially for those living in the neighborhoods directly south of the tracks who need to access the bus. The Hunts Lane sbX station is located approximately half a mile directly north.

Here’s what SanBAG had to say about it:

The last two sentences of that tweet are quite appropriate as the final design leaves much to be desired and includes a fair amount of built-in danger.

Of course, given the name, the accommodations for bikes are of great interest to this blog. Unfortunately, the current outlook is dismal. Since neither Colton nor San Bernardino has a bike master plan, Hunts Ln. is not a designated bikeway in either city either. Therefore, it also never made its way up to the SanBAG NMTP and thus missed this project. Although cycletracks weren’t yet approved when this project was hatched and started, they could’ve still built the bridge a little wider to accommodate some decent bike lanes. Especially considering the cliff faces curbs that border the roadway on the bridge.

That boat has now sailed, so re-adapting what we’re stuck with will have to be the way to go. There is still room for accommodating bikes a little better by way of the striping. It appears that the current design is for 12′ inside lanes and 17′ outside lanes. That presents a quandary to those pedaling along because CVC 21202 could be used against riders who are “impeding” traffic while controlling the outside lanes. However, both inside and outside lanes can be slimmed down a bit to accommodate a striped Class II bike lane. Using 10′ inside lanes and 13′ outside lanes leaves enough room to stripe a 6′ bike lane. Additionally, the slimmer lanes will encourage lower speeds. Currently, Hunts Lane is signed for 45 MPH, but initial observations show that some people think that is only a suggestion.

Speaking of striping, there are a couple of noggin scratchers there too. The most glaring error in that regard is the installation of ‘shark teeth’ upside down. A ‘pork chop island’ and right slip turn were included from Hunts Lane south to Oliver Holmes Rd. west with the requisite ‘YIELD’ sign and line. Or what was supposed to be a yield line. Per Section 3B.16 of the CA MUTCD, yield lines (aka ‘shark teeth’) are to be installed in this manner:

You had one job! But seriously. These 'shark teeth' are backwards.
You had one job! But seriously. These ‘shark teeth’ are backwards. This is how it should be done.

07 Yield lines (see Figure 3B-16 3B-16(CA)) shall consist of a row of solid white isosceles triangles pointing toward approaching vehicles extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which the yield is intended or required to be made. – CA MUTCD 2012 Section 3B.16

Why so far?
Why so far?

They clearly missed the mark on that one. Another striping quirk was the limit line at Oliver Holmes Rd. It was set a ways back (22′ to be exact) from the intersection itself for all lanes. Oliver Holmes does see a fair amount of truck traffic, so the intent is likely to not have any turning conflict between trucks and vehicles at a limit line at the intersection. But perhaps staggered setbacks would be better? Currently, ALL lanes have their stop lines the same distance from the intersection itself. That distance may be fine for the left turn lane, but the inside lane could probably be brought up another 6′ and the outside lane a good 14′ and still not intrude into the area necessary to complete at turn.

The visibility is constrained from behind the line.
The visibility is constrained from behind the crosswalk.

But the real dangerous part of the whole project is on the south side of the tracks. While the intersections on the north side have signals, those on the south side don’t. As a result, people are left to their own devices and due to the proximity of Riverwood St. and Commercial Rd. to each other, it appears that one continues into the other. However, they’re just far enough apart that it’s not a straight shot. Added to that is the fact that visibility from behind the crosswalk on Riverwood is lackluster. A couple of hairy situations were observed in just the 15 minutes of taking pictures. As more people realize that Hunts is open and start using it, nothing good will come of this hodgepodge of intersections.

This island...
That island (not to be confused with Dhat Island)…
...should be here.
…should be here.

Most peculiar was the island located slightly south of Riverwood to delineate the left turn pocket from Hunts Ln. onto Riverwood. It has no obvious practical purpose. Given the propensity for dangerous crossings at Commercial Rd. and Riverwood St., the concrete would’ve seen better use creating an island restricting left turns off both of those roads. Nothing good will come of the current setup.

All that aside, the end of major construction will certainly be appreciated, even if there is still stuff to be done. At the same time, SanBAG needs to step back and take a long, hard look at their design of grade separation projects. These are the types of facilities that are quite expensive to build and cost-prohibitive to retrofit, especially for bike/ped needs. With several under construction and more in the planning phases, it is imperative that they be done right from the very beginning. There is hope for this project, but what is really needed will likely never happen.